JAURO AHMADU ALI & ANOR v. AHMADU ADAMU DANDOGARI (2013)

JAURO AHMADU ALI & ANOR v. AHMADU ADAMU DANDOGARI

(2013)LCN/6213(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Monday, the 20th day of May, 2013

CA/J/5/2010

RATIO

POSITION OF THE LAW ON CONFLICTING AFFIDAVITS

It is settled law that when a court is faced with Affidavits of parties which are irreconcilably in conflict the Judge hearing the case must first hear oral evidence from the deponents to such Affidavits or such other witnesses as the parties may be advised to call to resolve the conflicts in the affidavits of the parties. See LAWRENCE OLU-IBUKUN & ANOR VS ADESOLA OLU IBUKUN (1974) 4 E.C.S.L.R. 706 at 709 – 710 per FATAYI WILLIAMS, J.S.C. who held:
“It is clear from his ruling that all these controversial matters which were yet to be resolved, were taken into consideration by the trial Judge in making his award. We think he was in error to have done so. In this Connection, the following observation of this court in AKISETE VS AKINDUTIRE (1966) 1 ALL N.L.R. 147 AT PAGE 148 is apposite. It reads:-
“In the face of the direct conflict of affidavits on crucial facts, the trial Judge, we think should have heard oral evidence from deponents or such other witnesses as the parties may be advised to call….”

JUSTICES

RAPHEAL CHIKWE AGBO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

PETER OLABISI IGE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. JAURO AHMADU ALI
2. MOHAMMADU GAINAKO Appellant(s)

AND

AHMADU ADAMU DANDOGARI Respondent(s)

PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Judgment of HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE GOMBE – MAOGOMYA – J delivered on 30th day of June, 2008. The facts of this case are straight forward. The Respondent as Plaintiff at the court below approached the High Court vide Originating summons dated 7th day of January, 2008 and filed on 10th day of January, 2008 seeking for determination of the following questions viz:-

“1. Whether by the judgment of Kaltungo Area Court of 15/5/1975 between the plaintiff and 1st defendant’s father the Plaintiff is not entitled to the peaceful occupation of the land laying (sic) and situate at Latodo in Kaltungo L.G.A. presently occupied by the defendants.

2. Whether the Judgment of Kaltungo Area court between Plaintiff and 1st Defendant’s father now deceased it was not a vacation of the land.

3. Whether by the death of the 1st defendant’s father the land did not revert to the plaintiff as per the Judgment of the court not still. Still subsisting (sic).

The Respondent as Plaintiff then sought for the following reliefs:-

1. A DECLARATION that on the death of the 1st defendant’s father the land reverted to the Plaintiff being his inheritance by the Judgment of Kaltungo Area Court of 15/5/75 which is subsisting.

2. AN ORDER of court directing the 1st defendant, his privies and cohorts to vacate and deliver up the land they now occupy to Plaintiff being his inheritance.

3. A perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants privies and cohorts from further entry into the land.

4. 100,000.00 general damages.

5. Cost of the Action.

The Originating Summons was accompanied with statement of facts and Particulars supporting the application for the issuance of Originating summons against the Defendants now Appellants in this court. The Originating summons was supported by Affidavit. It has fourteen (14) paragraphs. The Appellants filed counter affidavit of five (5) paragraphs against the Originating summons on 8th day of April, 2008.

The Respondent upon being served with the counter Affidavit of the Appellant filed a further Affidavit in support of the Respondent’s Originating at the Court below. It has five (5) paragraphs.

The learned trial Judge heard arguments on the Originating Summons and gave his Ruling on the matter on 30th day of June, 2008. See pages 32-35 of the Record of Appeal. The learned trial Judge concluded his Judgment in the following manner:-

It is settled law that a decision of a court not appealed against remain valid, subsisting and binding between the parties and it is presumed acceptable to the parties.

From the foregoing, it is my humble view that the plaintiff is entitle to the land in dispute as inheritance from his father. Consequently i hereby rule in favour of the plaintiff with all the declarations and the order of reliefs sought as follows:

1. I declare that on the death of the 1st defendant’s father, the land reverted to the plaintiff being his inheritance by the judgment of Kaltungo Area Court of 15th May, 1075 which is still subsisting.

2. Having declared that the land be reverted to the plaintiff as per judgment of Kaltungo Area Court of 15/5/75 it is hereby ordered, that the 1st defendant, his privies and cohorts vacate and deliver up the possession of the land they now occupy to the plaintiff being his inheritance and

3. A perpetual injunction is hereby granted restraining the defendants privies and cohorts from further entry into the land or tempering with the land in dispute in any form.

4. I hereby order that the sum of N20,000.00 be paid to the plaintiff as general damages. This shall be the ruling of this court.

Sgd

Hon. Justice J. R. Magomya
30/6/2008

The defendants now Appellant were aggrieved by the Judgment and have appealed to this court on four grounds which are as follows:-

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1. The Gombe State High Court erred in law by failing to recognize that the suit of the Plaintiff before it which is based on hostile facts offends Order 1 rule 2 of the relevant High Court Civil procedure rules in that it is one that cannot be determined under the originating summons procedure, therefore occasioning a very serious miscarriage of justice.

2. The Gombe State High Court erred in law when it held that by the death of the 1st Defendant’s father the land in question reverted to the Plaintiff and by giving orders for the Defendants to vacate the land without taking into consideration the facts, reasons and circumstances surrounding the Kaltungo Area Court’s judgment of 1975 and the facts as they presently exist on the ground.

3. Gombe State High Court erred in law by failing to resolve major conflicts in the affidavits filed before it either by calling oral evidence or by visiting the locus in quo even when the two counsel during their addresses called on the court that a visit to the locus was necessary to resolve theses conflicts.

4. The whole decision is unreasonable, unwarranted and cannot be supported having regard to the weight of evidence.

RELIEFS SOUGHT FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL

An order of the court setting aside the judgment of the Gombe State High Court No.8 and either dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim as lacking in merit or by transferring the case to the general cause list to be heard on the merit by another trial judge”

The Appellants filed their Brief of Arguments in this court on 28th June, 2012. It was not dated. The Appellants raised three issues for determination namely:-

“(i) Whether it was proper for the Gombe State High Court to have heard and determined this suit under an originating summons when there were contentious issues involved therein which ought to be determined only by credible evidence. Issue settled from ground one.

Whether the trial High Court Gombe was right in failing to resolve major conflicts in the various affidavits filed before it by calling oral evidence but rather simply going ahead to enter Judgment in favour of the Respondent without giving any heed to the Major conflicting issues raised. Issue settled from grounds three.

(iii) Whether the interpretation of the judgment of Kaltungo Area court of 1975 as given by the Gombe state High court is supported by credible evidence. Issue settled from grounds two and four”

The Respondent’s Brief of Argument was filed on 8th August, 2012 but dated the 7th August, 2012. The Respondent claimed he would not formulate issues different from those formulated by Appellant yet he said:-

“The Respondent wilt not formulate different issues for determination, rather in adopting the issues formulated by the Appellants the Respondent is of the view that issues 1 and 2 of the Appellant (sic) are the same and repetitive hence the Respondent formulated two issues from the three thus:-

1. Whether there were contentious issues before the trial court in this case that will necessitate resolution by oral evidence (settled from grounds 1 and 3 of the a grounds of appeal).

2. Whether the interpretation of the Judgment of the Kaltungo Area Court of 1975 as given by the Gombe State High court is supported by credible evidence (settled from grounds 2 & 4).”

I am of the opinion that this appeal can be decided on the issues formulated by the Appellants. I will treat them seriatim.

ISSUE 1

WHETHER IT WAS PROPER FOR THE GOMBE STATE HIGH COURT TO HAVE HEARD AND DETERMINED THIS SUIT UNDER AN ORIGINATING SUMMONS WHEN THERE ARE CONTENTIONS ISSUES INVOLVED THEREIN WHICH OUGHT TO BE DETERMINED ONLY BY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE.

P. A. Aki Esq., for the Appellants submitted that by order 1 of the High Court of Bauchi State applicable to Gombe State under which the suit leading to this appeal was commenced provides for different modes of initiating actions namely by Writ of Summons, Originating Motion or petitions. That the most relevant to the suit herein is ORDER 1 Rule 2(2) of the High court (civil procedure) Rules of Bauchi State applicable in Gombe State which states:-

“2 Proceedings may be begun by originating summons where:-

(a)The sole or principal question at issue is, or likely to be, one of the construction of a written law or any instrument made under any written law, or deed, will, contract or other document or some other question of law; or

(b) There is likely (sic) to be any substantial dispute of fact.”

Looking at the present proceedings, according to Appellant’s learned counsel, the Respondent brought before the trial court two issues for determination and out of it he sought for five reliefs by the questions asked.
According to him the Respondent’s action seemed to be asking the lower court for interpretation of the KALTUNGO AREA COURT’S JUDGMENT DELIVERED since 15-5-75 but that the reliefs the Respondent claimed at the lower court indicated that was far from the truth.

Appellants submitted that the five reliefs sought by the Respondent at the lower court are not within the contemplation of ORDER 1 Rule 2(2) of the Gombe State High Court Rules. That a look at the Judgment the Respondent wanted the trial court to interpret, the Affidavit evidence before the trial court, the action was a hostile proceeding which learned Appellants counsel stated could not be decided without calling witnesses. That the most serious of the considerations is how the 2nd Appellant came to be included in the proceeding since according to P. A. Aki Esq., the judgment of 1975 did not mention him and there was no sufficient explanation in the Affidavit in support as to why the lower court should interpret Judgment against him. He therefore submitted that the mode of commencing the action is not via an Originating Summons but by a writ of Summons which would have necessitated the calling of evidence. He relied on the following cases viz:-

1. OSUNBADE & ORS VS OYEWUWMI (2007) 148 LRCN 1144 at 1147 RATIO 1, 3, 4 and 5.

2. OSSAI VS WAKWAH (2006) 135 LRCN 756 at 759 – 760 RATIO 1 & 4

and
3. FAGBOLA VS TITLAYO PLAST. IND LTD. (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt.909) 1 AT 5 RATIO 5.

That the lower court was extensively addressed on the issue on pages 26-28 of the Record but according to learned counsel, important as the issue was, the trial court casually glossed over it in his Judgment thereby shutting out especially the 2nd Appellant. He urged the court to uphold this appeal on this ground.
In reply to issue one Chief Caleb Ubale for the Respondent submitted that there is no contentious in this case as according to him the case is straight forward. That the Appellants were just imagining contentious issues. He submitted that a court is entitled to look at the record in its possession and make use of the information. He cited the cases of USMAN vs. KADUNA (STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY (2008) ALL FWLR Pt.397 78 AT 82 and ONYEJEKWE VS ACHEBE (2009) ALL FWLR (Pt.495) 1810 AT 1812 to draw attention of this court to the KALTUNGO AREA COURT’S Judgment contained on pages 12-13 of the record which he said are explicit. He reproduced the Judgment that the 1st Plaintiff (sic) did not in his Counter Affidavit sworn to on 8/4/2008 deny the case between his father and the Respondent and that he confirmed exhibit “D” attached to the Affidavit in support of the Originating summons in that the 1st Appellant admitted that the said Ali Latoddo (Babaneri) did not vacate the land but died in 2003 leaving the 1st Appellant behind as the new JAURO (Ward Head) and that the 2nd Appellant did not deny being on the land. That the fact that other people have encroached upon the land was not an issue addressed in the Judgment that the second Appellant was identified as a co-heir, a privy and a cohort. That if there are other people on the land the proper approach for them was to approach the court to be joined as parties. That it is a Plaintiff who decides whom to sue or join in his suit. He relied on the cases of SAPO AND ANORS VS SUNMONU (2010) 189 LRCN 26 at 35 ratio 6 and BELLO VS INEC (2010) 184 LRCN 54 at 61. Chief Ubale said the cases of OSUNBADE VS OYEWUNMI supra, OSAI VS WAKWAH supra and FAGBOLA VS TITILAYO PLASTIC IND. LTD supra cited and relied upon by the Appellant are not on all fours with the facts of this case and so are inapplicable. That this case has to do with interpretation of a Judgment of a competent court that was not set aside and which the Appellants are not disputing. That if the 1st Appellant’s father brought other people upon the land that would not entitle those people to the land because the father of 1st Appellant could not pass any title in the land to them since he was not the owner of the land. He relied on the Affidavit of Respondent which he said is on page 44 and 56 of the Record that the reliefs sought by the Respondent at the lower court are not outside the contemplation of ORDER 1 of the High Court (Civil procedure) Rules Bauchi State applicable to the High Court of Gombe State. That the lower court was entitled to make an order that will meet the end of justice. Chief Ubale urged this court to hold that there is no contentious issue in this case and that the reliefs as granted was proper.
Now the learned counsel to the Appellants harped a lot in the Appellants’ Brief that with the facts in the Affidavits evidence before the court and the reliefs claimed, this action could not have been initiated vide
Originating Summons in that contentious issues were raised by the claims of the Respondent against the Appellants at the lower court. The Appellant could not fathom how the two questions raised for determination by the Respondent at the lower court would metamorphosed into a claim for five reliefs by the same Respondent at the lower court. These to them made the mode of commencement of this action inappropriate at the lower court.

The main use of Originating Summons is to attain the end of justice expeditiously where the issues involved in a cause or matter calling for determination are purely questions of law devoid of disputed issues of facts. The whole essence of originating summons and its relevance in initiating an action or proceeding has been explained in numerous cases. Suffice to refer to one or two of them.

“(1) In the case of NJIDEKA EZEGWE Vs CHIEF SIR BENSON CHUKS NWAWULU & ORS. (2010) 4 NWLR (PART 1183) 153 at 215 – 216 ADEKEYE JSC said:-

Finally, was the court right to have decided the questions before the court on Originating Summons or the Plaintiff should have filed a Writ of Summons?

Mode of commencement of action is an indispensable aspect of our Civil Procedure rules; hence various courts have it embodied in their Civil Procedure Rules. Originating Summons is merely a method of procedure and not one that is meant to enlarge jurisdiction of the court. The main advantage is simplicity resulting from the elimination of Pleadings.

Order 2 Rules 2 of the Federal High Court Civil procedure Rules stipulated that:

Order 2 Rules 2(2)

(b) Proceedings may begin by Originating Summons where

(a) The sole or principal question at issue is, or it likely to be, one of the construction of a written law or of any deed, will, contract or other document or some other question or law; or

(b) There is unlikely to be any substantial dispute of fact, U.B.A. VS EKPO (2003) 12 NWLR (PART 834) PAGE 332, SALEH vs MONGUNO (2003) 1 NWLR (PART 801,) PAGE 221. JIMOH Vs OLAWOYE (2003) 10 NWLR (PART 828) PAGE 307, NBN. LTD. ALAKIJA (1978) 9 – 10 SC PAGE 59, OLOYO VS ALEGBE (1983) 2 SCNLR PAGE 35. DIN VS A. G. FEDERATION (1986) 1 NWLR (PART 17) PAGE 471.

The procedure of Originating Summons is meant to be invoked in a friendly action between parties who are substantially ad idem on the facts and who, without the need for pleadings, merely want, for example a directive of the court on the point of law involved. The procedure is not meant to be invoked in a hostile action between parties and in which the parties concerned need know beforehand the issue which they are called upon to contend with from pleading. There can be disputed facts which originating summons procedure could resolve, but, where the disputed facts are substantial, the proper mode of commencing such an action is by writ of summons so that pleadings can be filed. In order words, Originating Summons procedure is appropriate where there is no substantial dispute of facts between the parties or likelihood of such dispute.”
(2) In the case of M/S OLUCHI ANYANWAKO VS CHIEF MRS. CHRISTY OKOYE & ORS (2010) 5 NWLR (PART 1188) 497 AT 576 to 577 A-E where TABAI J.S.C. said:
“In this case, there it is the claim of the plaintiffs/Respondents that determines whether the matters submitted for determination can appropriately be taken by on originating summons. The 1st Respondent claimed.

(1) A declaration that the 1st Plaintiff is the lawful wife of deceased having married under the Act.

(2) An order of court vacating the caveat filed by the defendant and her solicitor at the probate Registry stopping the Plaintiffs from obtaining letter of administration of the deceased.

It is clear from originating summons and the documents attached to the affidavit in support thereof that in so far as the plaintiffs/Respondents are concerned the marriage between 1st respondent and the deceased was statutory and all that they required the court to determine was the legal incidents of such marriage. For the purpose of the proof of her case, the 1st Respondent needed only to tender the marriage certificate. The substance of the case of the respondents is that since, a part from the statutory marriage between the 1st respondent and the deceased, there can be no other marriage between the deceased and any to her person including the appellant, and originating summons would suffice to establish their claim.”

In order to effectively determine whether the Appellants’ contention is right or not one must have recourse to the questions raised for resolution by the Respondent at the lower court, the reliefs he sought and the Affidavits evidence before the lower court.
I have earlier on in this judgment reproduced the questions the Respondents sought for determination at the court below and the reliefs claimed by him.
It is now necessary to reproduce the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, the counter Affidavit of the Appellants and the Further Affidavit of the Respondent at the lower court. In the Affidavit in support of the originating summons which can be found on pages 5 – 7 of the Record, the Respondent as Plaintiff in the Court below deposed as follows:-

“1. Ahmadu Adamu Dandogari, male, adult of Kaltungo, doth make oath and state as follows:

1. That I am the plaintiff in this suit and by virtue of my position conversant with the facts of this suit.

2. That the defendants are heirs and privies to late Ali Latoddo father to the 1st defendant.

3. That before the death of Ali Latoddo we had a case with him over my father’s land which I inherited and the late Ali Latoddo entered into it.

4. That I sued him in Kaltungo Area court and judgment was delivered on 15/5/1975 and the judgment in Hausa was to the effect that late Ali Latoddo should continue to stay on the land until he leaves the place then I will take over.

5. That neither of us appealed against the decision the certified copy of the Hausa record is annexed marked exhibit ‘A’

7 That the translated copy in English is attached marked Exhibit ‘B’.

8. That later my younger brother Alh. Yakubu Dandogari Kaltungo sued late Ali Mohammed Latoddo in Tangale Waja Area Court, Kaltungo and he got Judgment.

9. That on appeal to Upper Area Court Kaltungo the Upper Court set aside the Judgment on the grounds that Kaltungo Area Court Judgment between Late Lataddo and myself is subsisting since there is no appeal on that Judgment and Yakubu my brother cannot sue afresh.

10. That the Hausa copy of the Judgment is annexed marked exhibit “C” and the translated copy in English Exhibit “D”

11. That the said Ali LATODDO dies sometimes in the year 2004 and the defendants are now heirs and I am still alive.

12. That I am informed by Chief C. Ubale on 27/12/07 by 3:00pm and I verily believe him to be true as follows:-

(a) That the Kaltungo Area court Judgment of 15/5/75 was not a declaration of title in favour of Late Ali Latoddo.

(b) That the Judgment is to the effect that he will remain in the land until he leaves.

(d) That the present defendants cannot inherit the land.

(e)That it will be in the interest of Justice if the Judgment of the Area court is interpreted and title is declared in my favour over the land.

13. That it will be in the interest of justice if the reliefs sought are declared in my favour.

14. That I depose to the affidavit in good faith and accordance with the oaths Act 1990.”

The Appellants filed counter Affidavit as defendants in the court below through the Litigation Clerk of their Learned counsel who deposed thus:

“I Andrew Yunusa, Male, Moslem, Nigerian citizen resident at Arawa Quarters Gombe hereby do make oath and state as follows:-

1. That I am a Litigation clerk at Aki P. A. & Company a Firm of Legal Practitioners resident at Gombe, counsel representing the two defendants and by virtue of my position I am conversant with the facts herein after deposed to.
2. That I have the authority and consent of the Defendants and that of their counsel Barrister peter Aki to depose to this Affidavit.

3. That the 1st Defendant informed me at our office on Monday 7/4/08 at about 1:45pm and which information I believe to be true as follows:-

(a) That his late father Alh. Ali Latoddo (Babaneri) was the first person to settle on the disputed land sometimes on or about 1964.
(b) That he was given the place where he settled and which now in dispute by the then village Head of Kano.
(c) That sometimes in or about 1975 while he was still living in that area with other people, the Plaintiff came to work right in front of the mosque and his father prevented him which resulted into the case at the Kaltungo Area Court.
(d) That at the end of that proceedings, the court confirmed the land to his father based on the evidence of his farming and residence among others on the land and that nobody appealed against that Judgment up to date.
(e)That because there was no appeal against that Judgment, the village continued to grow and that the 1st Defendant’s father continued farming on the land.
(f) That in 1987 one Alh. Yakubu Dando Gari, the Plaintiff’s brother again sued his father afresh at the Langale Waja Area Court Kaltungo and which case went up to Upper Area Court Kaltungo which finally confirmed the Judgment that was delivered since 1975 thus dismissing the claim.
(g)That because nobody again ever challenged them, the village has grown into o big one now with not less than 19 married men in it who includes the following:-

1. Jauro Ahmadu
2. Abba Ali
3. Manu Ali
4. Moh’d Gainakum
5. Buba Baka
6. Yaya Baka
7. Alh. Buba
8. Buhari Buba
9. Yaya Buba
10. Yayaji M. Mantu
11. Jalo M. Manu
12. Buba Manu
13. Alh. Manu
14. Magoji Gainako
15. Babawuro Abba
16. Seyo Manu
17. Adamu Gainako
18. Bello Ahmadu
19. Buba Yaya (Maikudi)

h. That the said Alh. Latoddo (Babaneri) did not vacate the land but dies sometimes in 2003 but left him behind as the new Jauro (Ward Head). More over the village at the present has not less that 80 people residing therein, some in their zinc houses.

i. That the absence of any challenge to the court confirming the land to his father since 1975 is the reason why all the above mentioned people have done what they did and presently, may not have any where to go if ordered to vacate the land.

4. The plaintiff who is in the full picture of what is going on has now brought this originating summons with ill motive.

5. That I make this declaration solemnly and conscientiously believe the same to be true and in accordance with the provisions of the Oath Act”

The Appellants Counter Affidavit at the Court below elicited a FURTHER COUNTER AFFIDAVIT from the Respondent as Plaintiff in the court below. The Respondent then further deposed as follows:-

“I, Ahmadu Adamu Dandogari, Male, Adult, of Kaltungo, Gombe do hereby make oath and state as follows:-

1. That I am the Plaintiff in this suit and by virtue of my position am conversant with the facts of this suit.
2. That in the area in dispute, there are no houses as alleged in paragraph 3(g) of the Counter Affidavit. It is only the house of late Mal. Ali Latoddo, the father of 1st Defendant.
3. That Ali Latoddo who died in 2003 has vacated the land.
4. That all the people mentioned in paragraph 3(g) are not in the area in dispute.
5. That I deposed to this affidavit in good faith and in accordance with the Oaths Act 1990.”

See pages 20A of the Record. I am of the solemn view that from all the processes filed by the parties at the lower court particularly the Affidavits for and against the originating summons, the issues or claims at stake revolved around the interpretation, implication and the effect of the Judgment of the KALTUNGO AREA COURT delivered on 15th day of May, 1975 in the suit between the Respondent herein in this appeal and the 1st Appellants father. The translated English version of the said Judgment, decision and or findings of the Kaltungo Area court on 15-5-75 read:-

Today being 15/5/75 the court continues hearing in the matter of AHMADU KALTUNGO against ALI LATODDO over farmland.

COURT FINDINGS
“This matter was brought by Ahmadu against Ali Latoddo alleging that he went to his father’s old settlement (kufayi) with the intention of working in it but chased away by M. Ali, in proof of his claim Ahmadu called 3 witnesses to wit:-

Dandogani Uban Ahmadu, Jauro Baru and Ahmadu Yusuf Latoddo whose testimonies indicates that, the old settlement question is a property belonging to Ahmadu’s father, whereas the defendant M. Ali could not dispute the fact that, the said old settlement is a property belonging to Ahmadu’s father at all.

The court has listened to the submissions of both parties on the 7/5/1975. The court has equally attended the disputed land to see for itself the disputed land and it is true that, it is an old settlement and it has been long vacated. In accordance with the experience and understanding, it has been long since the said M. Ali settled and lived there on the land and cultivated the land now in dispute. Whereas, the said M. Ali was an immigrant who merely came and settled there, this court is satisfied and therefore confirm the land in favour of M. Ali.

The said M. Ali is hereby ordered by the court to refund the filing fees incurred by Ahmadu. The said M. Ali shall continue to cultivate the said portion pending anytime he vacates same and go back to his father’s old settlement. This is the decision of this court however, there is a right of appeal to upper Area Court to both parties (Ahmadu and M. Ali) in the event of dissatisfaction with the decision within 30 days”

See pages 12 – 13 of the Record.

I have carefully perused the processes filed by the parties and the Judgment sought to be interpreted at the lower court. I am in full agreement with the lower court that the action was properly initiated or begun by Originating Summons because what was involved was the interpretation of the Judgment of Kaltungo Area Court delivered on 15/5/1975. The facts deposed to in the various Affidavits (three in all) deposed to by the parties cannot derogate from the glaring material facts in the said Affidavits showing that the issue before the lower court bordered on the interpretation of the said KALTUNGO AREA COURT’S Judgment dated 15/5/75. See HOPE UZODINMA VS SENATOR OSITA B. IZUNASO & ORS (2011) 17 NWLR (PART 1275) 30 AT 75A to 76 A-B per ONNOGHEN J.S.C, who said:-

“As regards issue 2, which is substantially whether Originating summons procedure is the appropriate mode of commencing the present action, I hold the view that having regards to the facts of the case relevant to the determination of the main issue before the court Originating Summons is an appropriate mode of commencing the instant action. I know that there are certain controversial facts raised in the action but those facts are not relevant to the determination of the main issue in contraversy which had earlier been identified in this judgment.”

See also NJIDEKA EZEGWE VS CHIEF SIR BENSON CHUKS NWAWULU & ORS supra and M/S OLUCHI ANYANWOKO V. CHIEF MRS CHRISTY OKOYE & ORS supra pages 516H to 517 A – E per TABAI J.S.C. I therefore hold that there is no contentious issues disclosed on the Affidavits before the lower court for the enlistment of Writ of Summons in the commencement of the action. ISSUE 1 is resolved against the Appellants.

ISSUES 2

WHETHER THE TRIAL HIGH COURT GOMBE WAS RIGHT IN FAILING TO RESOLVE MAJOR CONFLICTS IN THE VARIOUS AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE IT BY CALLING ORAL EVIDENCE BUT RATHER SIMPLY GOING AHEAD TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT WITHOUT GIVING ANY HEED TO MAJOR CONFLICTING ISSUES RAISED, ISSUES SETTLED FROM GROUND THREE

The Appellant’s learned Counsel submitted that in an originating summons like the present one, the affidavits and the exhibits thereto (where any) forms the basis upon which the process can be determined. That the depositions such Affidavits have to be proved like averments in pleading.
That the Respondent placed reliance on Exhibit “A” which is the Hausa version of the record relied upon and which was translated into English as Exhibit “B” contained on pages 10 – 13 of the record. That Respondent also deposed to certain facts on pages 5- 7 of the record. That the said depositions were countered in the Appellant’s affidavit on pages 19-20 of the record and that as a result of that the Respondent deposed to further Affidavit.
According to learned counsel it was contested in the various Affidavit as to the fact that the area referred to is a village where people not less that 80 persons were living on the land with some of the families which by the list the lower court was made to see the inequity and hardship that the process would cause the innocent people who may not be heard by the court as to how they came about living there. That the further Affidavit was to the effect that nobody was on the alleged area.
The learned counsel stated that as far back as 1975 the court’s finding was clear and showed people were on the land that the contradiction but in the Affidavits were not cosmetic but touching on material issue which needed proof. He relied on UBN PLC VS A. B. (W). LTD supra ratio 5. That the best was to call for oral evidence to resolve the material contradictions that the lower court failed to resolve the material conflicts in the Affidavits of the parties yet proceeded to give Judgment to the Respondent. He relied on the case of LSDP v. FIRST BANK NIG. PLC (2005) 124 LRCN 337 at 350, 335, 356.
He submitted that the trial court was in error to have ignored all the contradictions matters in the Affidavit. He urged the court to hold that the trial court was in error.
In reply the learned counsel to the Respondent was of the view that his answer on issue 1 also constitute the answer to issue two raised by the Appellant. According to Chief Ubale they are basically arguing the same thing as done under issue 1.
He submitted that contrary to the position taken by the Appellants, the interpretation given to the judgment of Kaltungo Area Court of 1975 is supported by credible evidence. That there was a visit to the land in 1975 by the Area Court and the Area Court found that the 1st Appellants father settled on the Respondent father’s ruins that there was no denial by first Appellant’s first Appellant’s father that what the Area Court said was that the 1st Appellant’s father had been on the land for a long time and that mere long possession cannot confer title. He relied on the case of DAGACI OF DERE VS DAGACI OF EBWA (2006) 140 LRCN 2114 at 2178 E and he also relied on the finding of the Area Court. He then listed what he believed were the issues settled in the Judgment of Kaltungo Area Court. That the Judgment of Area Court made it clear that 1st Appellant would go back to his own fathers ruin and vacated the 1st Respondents father’s ruins as decided against 1st Appellant’s father. That what was given to the 1st Appellant’s father was possessory right and not declaration of title. That the word “VACATION” used in the Kaltungo Area court’s Judgment was referable to the 1st Appellants father. That the death of 1st Appellant’s father brought about a natural vacation of the land and that the 1st Appellant cannot claim inheritance of the land. He urged the court to dismiss the appeal.
It is settled law that when a court is faced with Affidavits of parties which are irreconcilably in conflict the Judge hearing the case must first hear oral evidence from the deponents to such Affidavits or such other witnesses as the parties may be advised to call to resolve the conflicts in the affidavits of the parties. See LAWRENCE OLU-IBUKUN & ANOR VS ADESOLA OLU IBUKUN (1974) 4 E.C.S.L.R. 706 at 709 – 710 per FATAYI WILLIAMS, J.S.C. who held:
“It is clear from his ruling that all these controversial matters which were yet to be resolved, were taken into consideration by the trial Judge in making his award. We think he was in error to have done so. In this Connection, the following observation of this court in AKISETE VS AKINDUTIRE (1966) 1 ALL N.L.R. 147 AT PAGE 148 is apposite. It reads:-
“In the face of the direct conflict of affidavits on crucial facts, the trial Judge, we think should have heard oral evidence from deponents or such other witnesses as the parties may be advised to call….”

See also J. O. FALOBI VS. E. O. FALOBI (1976) NMLR 169 AT 178 again per FATAYI – WILLIAMS of blessed memory. However where in a matter fought on Affidavits there are attached to such Affidavits or one of them documentary evidence, such documents or document can be used to resolve whatever conflicts emanating from such conflicting Affidavits where it can dispense with the need to call oral evidence to resolve conflicts in such Affidavits. See B. v. MAGNUSSON VS KOIKI & ORS (1991) 4 NWLR (PART 183) 119 AT 129 D-E per NIKI TOBI JSC who said:-
“In this application, there are conflicting affidavits evidence which this court and indeed any other court for that matter is not competent to resolve suo motu see PHARMACISTS BOARD vs ADEBESIN (1976) 55C 43, FALOBI vs FALOBI (1976) 9 – 10 SC1, EBOH VS OKI (1974) 1 SC 179, UKU VS OKUMAGBA (1974) 3 S.C. 35. I will not make any effort to resolve the conflicting affidavit evidence as that is a futile exercise. But all i should do is to use the documentary evidence outside the depositions in the Affidavit and come to a conclusion one way or the other as to the true position. The law does not require the calling of oral evidence to resolve conflicting affidavit evidence if there is sufficient documentary evidence to resolve the conflict”
In the case of LAFIA LOCAL GOVERNMENT Vs THE EXECUTIVE GOV. NASARAWA STATE & ORS (2012) 17 NWLR (PART 1328) 94 at 129 F-G the Supreme Court Per RHODES-VIVOUR J.S.C. said:-

Even if there are conflicts in affidavits but there are authentic documentary evidence supporting one of the affidavits in conflict with the other the trial court ought to examine it before applying it in coming to a fairs decision. See NWOSU VS IMO STATE ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION AUTHORITY (1990) 2 NWLR (PART 1990) 2 CHAIRMAN NPC vs CHAIRMAN, IKERE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (2001) 13 NWLR (PT.370) p.540″

The two parties in this appeal would appear to think that this is perhaps another opportunity to re-enact the trial that has since been concluded in 1,975 as to the ownership of the land covered by the Judgment of Kaltungo Area Court delivered on 15/5/1975. As a matter of fact the Appellants gave evidence both in the Counter Affidavit and in the Appellants brief of Argument as to the need to give evidence so that over 80 persons on the land and other families could be given a fair deal.
To me that is not the real issue before the lower court. The real issue before the lower court was/is the meaning to be ascribed to the Judgment of the Area Court delivered on 15/5/75. In Order words what is the effect and implication of the Judgment as between the Plaintiff (Now Respondent and 1st Appellant’s father and their agents or privies vis-a-vis the death of the 1st Appellant’s father on the land litigated upon in 1975.
It has always been the settled law that where the parties by their own design created conflicts in the Affidavits evidence before the court on matters that have no material bearing with the facts in issue in any matter fought on Affidavits the court will not be deterred from proceeding to decide the matter on the merit without any regard for conflicts in Affidavits that are not germane to the issue or issues calling f or determination or decision.
I have carefully read all the Affidavits and the documents exhibited to them and I am of the firm view that the learned trial Judge did not run foul of any principles of law concerning conflicts in Affidavits evidence before a court. He was right to have decided the matter as he did without paying attention to extraneous matters about those who are not parties to the action of 1975.
See LAGOS STATE DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTY CORPORATION VS ADOLD STAMM INTERNATIONAL NIGERIA LTD & ANOR (2005) 2 NWLR (PART 910) 603 AT 616 G – H to 617 A – F where Akintan, J.S.C. held thus.
“The question to be resolved in the appellant’s first issues is whether there are conflicts in the affidavit s filed by the parties. The two affidavits are already reproduced earlier above. The sum total of the appellant’s case as set out in the affidavit filed by it was that there was no need for a new interest to be determined outside the one awarded earlier by Desalu, J. On the other hand, the respondent sought the assistance of Afribank, a commercial bank, on the rate of interest payable on the Judgment debt had the sum been placed in a fixed deposit in a commercial bank within the time specified in the request made to the bank. The reply from the bank was exhibited as an annexure to the affidavit filed by the respondent. The second document also produced by the respondent is another calculation made by a Chartered Accountant but based on the same principle adopted by the bank and it was aimed at covering the period not covered by the calculation made by the bank. This was the document later produced in court. But it was also exhibited with the respondent’s motion as exhibit 2.
The question in this case therefore is whether one can say that the contents of the two affidavits filed by the parties can be said to be conflicting. In deciding whether or not the contents of the two documents are conflicting, one must look at the issue in controversy in the particular case before the court. This is because where, for example, the conflicts in affidavits are not material to the case before the court or where the facts are inadmissible, or are flimsy and are on an issue irrelevant and alien to the matter before the court, the need to call oral evidence to resolve the conflicts would not arise: See Falobi Vs Falobi (1976) 9 – 10 SC 1: Okupe Vs F.B.I.R. (1974) All NLR 314 (Reprint); Garba Vs University of Maiduguri (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.18) 550 and L.S.D.P.C. VS Adold/Stamm Int. Ltd. (1994) 7 NWLR (PT.358) 545. As already shown above, while the facts set out in the respondent’s affidavit relate to the interest due on the judgment debt which was what the Supreme Court directed Ilori, J. should determine, the appellant on the other hand, did not controvert or challenge the accuracy or otherwise any of the figures put forward in the affidavit filed by the respondent. Instead, it was claiming that there was no need for the appellant to pay any other interest other than the one based on the judgment of Desalu, J. It is therefore correct to say that there was infact no conflict in the affidavit evidence placed before the trial court since the allege conflict are infact not relevant to the case before the court. There is therefore no merit in the appeal as it relates to that issue.”
I have earlier on in this Judgment quoted the decision/findings of Kaltungo Area Court delivered on 15/5/75. There is no evidence on record not even in the so called conflicting Affidavits that any of the parties to that Judgment appealed against it. The parties to the Judgment and their privies are therefore bound by that extant decision/findings of the Area Court See
(1) ALHAJI (CHIEF) S. D. AKERE VS THE GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE & ORS (2012) 7 SCM 1 AT 304 H – I to 31 per ONNOGHEN JSC.

(2) CPC Vs INEC & ORS (2011) 18 NWLR (PART 1279) 493 at 577 F-G. per NGWUTA JSC.

(3) MR. UGOCHUKWU DURU Vs FRN (2013) 6 NWLR (PART 1051) 441 at 456 H – 457 A per MUHAMMAD, JSC.

(4) CHIEF I. B. IDOWU DAUDA & ORS VS THE HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE & ORS (2001) 10 SCM 76 at 32 per RHODES-VIVOUR JSC who held:

“The above shows that the appellants were relitigating the issue of being the landlords of Ilemba Awori and Ilemba Hausa, an issue settled in the Judgment of Dosumu J-Exhibit 5.

In several decisions of this court, the doctrine of Res Judicata estoppels was explained. See Ezeanya Vs Okeke (1995) 4 NWLR (PT 288) P.142, Faleye vs Otapo (1995) 3 NWLR (PT.381) P.1; Balogun vs Adejobi (1995) 2 NWLR (pt. 370) P.131.

Where a judgment, i.e. a final judicial decision has been pronounced on the merits by a court with the requisite jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, any party in such suit as against any other party is stopped in a subsequent suit from disputing such decision on the merits. Once it is a final decision on the same question and between the same parties it is binding until upset on appeal Res judicata gives effect to the policy of the Law that parties to a judicial decision should not afterwards be allowed to re-litigate the some question even if the decision is wrong. This is premised on the fact that a court has jurisdiction to decide wrongly as well as correctly, and if it makes a mistake its decision is binding unless corrected on appeal. Reasons for the doctrine of res judicata estoppels are the interest of the public in the termination of disputes, the conclusiveness of judicial decision and the fact that the individual ought to be protected from vexations and multiplicity of suits.”
A judgment of court subsists in perpetuity unless it is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. See PURIFICATION TECHNIQUE NIG LTD & ORS vs RUFAI JIBRIL & ORS (2012) 10 SCM 107 at 127 H to 128 A per NGWUTA, JSC who held:-
“(3) it has to be emphasized, my noble Lords, that a Judgment of a court subsists in perpetuity, not withstanding any error in law or facts therein, until and unless, it is set aside or vacated by d court of competent jurisdiction. It is common sense an action brought upon a judgment is an invocation of the coercive powers of the trial court to enforce the enforceable orders in the Judgment”
In effect no amount of self induced or created conflicts in an Affidavit or Affidavits before a court can change what a Judgment decides or decided. I hold there is no irreconcilable conflicts in the Affidavits evidence before the lower court preventing that court from embarking on the decision on questions submitted to it. All other reliefs claimed by the Respondent at the lower aside from relief one wherein the Respondent claimed” A declaration that at the death of 1st Defendant’s father the land reverted to the Plaintiff being his inheritance by the judgment of Kaltungo Area Court of 15/5/75 which is still subsisting” are adjuncts or ancillary to the first relief before the trial court, Those reliefs as claimed and the Affidavits of both parties could not elevate the matter to a CONTENTIOUS one requiring resolutions of conflicts in Affidavits vide oral evidence.

ISSUE 2 is therefore resolved against the Appellant:

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE KALTUNGO AREA COURT OF 1975 AS GIVEN BY THE GOMBE STATE HIGH COURT IS SUPPORTED BY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE (Issue settled from grounds two and four.

I must say that ground four of the Appellants’ Notice and grounds of Appeal viz:-

“The whole decision is unreasonable, unwarranted and cannot be supported having regard to the weight of evidence”

is unknown and it is an incompetent ground of appeal in a civil matter. The said ground of appeal may be an appropriate ground of appeal in criminal matters. The permissible omnibus ground of appeal in civil matters is

“JUDGMENT IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE”

Notwithstand this I will consider issue three but only in the con of ground three of the appeal.

On issue 3, the learned counsel to the Appellants argued that it was wrong for the Respondent to have urged the trial court to read into the Judgment of Kaltungo Area Court of 1975 that by the death of ALI LATODDO, the 1st Appellant’s father, he has vacated the land thereby warranting the Respondent to chase away all that were left there and take possession thereof as the said Judgment did not say so according to the learned counsel to Appellants.

He submitted that in the interpretation of statute or document the court should give the words being interpreted their ordinary meaning. He cited the case of AKUNEZIRI VS. OKENWA (2010) 82 LRCN 3367 at 3403 F – G that when dealing with proceedings in Area Court or Customary Court the entire proceedings should be scruitinised to ascertain the real subject matter and real issues involved. He relied on the cases of ERHUWUNSE VS EHAMRE (2003) 110 LRCN 1786 at 1803 AND IYAJI VS EYIGBE (2006) 2 LC 1 at 3 (sic).
Appellants learned Counsel drew attention to portion of the Judgment stating that the 1st Appellant’s father had been on the land for so long. That it was the contention of 1st Appellant’s father that he was given the disputed area by the village head of Kamu. Appellants, learned Counsel then said:-
“The controversial part of the Judgment in part read thus:-

“The court is satisfied and therefore confirm the land in favour of M. Ali.
The said M, Ali is hereby ordered by the court to refund the filing fees (sic) incurred by Ahmadu. The said M. Ali shall continue to cultivate the said portion pending any time he vacates some and go back to his father’s old settlement. This is the decision of the Court however, there is a right of appeal to the Upper Area Court to both parties Ahmadu and M. Ali in the vent of dissatisfaction with the decision within 30 days”

The Appellant’s counsel is of the opinion that the word ‘vacates’ used in the Judgment of Area court was qualified by
“….and go back to his father’s old settlement”
That this case on appeal is not an exercise of right of appeal given to the parties in the Area Court’s Judgment.
The learned counsel tried to dwell on a Judgment of Area Court between Mohammed Latodo Vs Alhaji Yakubu Dandogari Exhibit “D” that has no bearing with the rights of the parties as contained in 1975 Judgment to ctaim that, that later Judgment between different parties led people to be building on the land.
The Respondent had replied this issue under issue 2
I must say here that this submission is clearly extraneous to the issue before the trial court which was purely to interpret the Judgment between 1st appellant father and the Respondent and NOT about third parties who were not before Area Court in 1975 and High Court of Gombe State as at 30/6/2008 when the tower court gave its Judgment. The Appellants’ Counsel is not on record here as representing the interest of those people who were not and are not before any of the court concerning the subject matter of the Judgment interpreted. I am of the settle view that his submission vis:-

“We submit therefore that in interpreting the Judgment of the Kaltungo Area Court of 1975 the way the trial court did and which interpretation affected so many people who were never heard on the issue occasioned a very serious miscarriage of justice as all these people were denied their fundamental rights to fair hearing contrary to Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution as emended”

is clearly without any foundation. The court has no right of adjudication on any one who is not a party before it. The Respondent did not sue the imaginary persons. P. A. Aki Esq., was making a case for under the Section 36 of the constitution for people are not even before this court in this appeal.
It is a discourse on voyage of discovery that does not impact on any of the issues before this court and the court below. They are all much ado about nothing. Only a party to an action is entitled to fair hearing under section 36 of the constitution. It is strange that Appellants prefer to hold their own case with the hand while gleefully carrying another person’s burden on their own heads. It is a case of sympathizer weeping more than the bereaved.
The submissions have no basis in law. The cases of CHUKWUMA VS FRN (2011) 198 LRCN 73 AT 107 AND UKA V. EROLO (2002) 101 IRCN 1797 are not applicable to the facts of this case. The Appellants are only creating the impression had that they had no answer to the case of the Respondent at the lower court. Pleading the rights of third parties is/cannot be a magic ward to dislodge the Judgment of lower court. What is left now is to find out whether the death of the 1st Appellant’s father amounted to vacation of the land in question upon his death or demise.

At the tail end of the Judgment of the KALTUNGO AREA COURT ON 15-5-75 the following appears:-
“The said M. Ali is hereby ordered by the court to refund the filing fees incurred by Ahmadu, The said M. Ali shall continue to cultivate the said portion pending any time he vacates same and go back to his father’s old settlement,”

The Judgment of the lower court is lucid and clear enough that all it is saying is that the 1st Appellant’s father would be allowed to remain on the land for purposes of cultivation until he would go back to his own father’s (M. Ali’s) settlement. Definitely the Judgment of Area Court of Kaltungo did not decree any title to the land in favour of 1st Appellant’s father. To put it at the highest the Area court only had compassion for 1st Appellant’ father based on having being on the land for long and thus gave him the opportunity to leave the land at his own pleasure to go back to his father’s settlement.
The learned Counsel to the Appellants was right in his submission on page 6 paragraph 332 of Appellants brief when he said:-
“It is equally trite that in dealing with proceedings in an Area or Customary Court, the entire proceeding should be scrutinized and to study both evidence and findings so as to ascertain what the rear subject matter of the case and real issues are.”
See:
CYPRIAN ONWUAMA V. LIOUS EZEKOLI (2002) 5 NWLR (PART 760) 353 at 365 D – F where UWIFO J.S.C, (as he then was) said:-

“It has also been argued that the evidence led by the Respondent was not satisfactory. It must be remembered that this case was tried in a customary court where pleadings are unknown. The proceedings in such court are to be considered upon a broad view as to whether they were conducted in pursuit of the justice of the case presented by both parties. In other words, appellate courts are to consider the substance of the proceedings of Native, Customary or Area Courts liberally and this is done by reading the record to understand what the proceedings were all about so as to determine whether substantial justice has been done to the parties within the procedure permitted by such courts. See Dinsey vs Ossay (1939) 5 WACA 177; Jumai Alhaji Zaria v. Yar Maituwo (1966) NMLR 56; Ikpang v. Edoho (1978) 6 – 7 SC 221; Ibero v. Ume-Ohana (1993) 2 NWLR (Pt.277) 510; Chukwuee v. Okoronkwo (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt.587) 410; Duru v. Onwumelu (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt.746) 671.”
I have read the Record calmly and I have no doubt in mind that the 1st Appellant’s father was not given possession of the land till eternity. And he was not given any right of ownership on the said land. The 1st Appellant’s father admitted that Respondent owned the land du ring trial at the Kaltungo Area Court. On page 12 of the Record of Appeal for instance, the 1st Appellant’s father in answer to question from the Area Court said

“Ans Ali Latoddo t know that, that place belongs to them – I was only preventing them because it was the village head of Kamo who gave me, he may attest to that”

The Area Court Kaltungo made positive findings that the land belonged to the Respondent’s father and that the 1st Appellant’s father was an immigrant. For avoidance of doubt the Kaltungo Area Court held:-

“This matter was brought by Ahmadu against Ali Latoddo that he went to his father’s old settlement (Kufayi) with the intention of working in it but chased away by M. Ali in proof of his claim Ahmadu called 3 witnesses to wit:
Dandogori Uban Ahmadu, Jauro Barai and Ahmadu Yusufu Latoddo whose testimonies indicate that the old settlement in question is a property belonging to Ahmadu’s father, whereas the defendant M. Ali could not dispute the fact that, the said old settlement is a property belonging to Ahmadu’s father, at all.”
I am of the view that the death of 1st Appellant’s father had brought about ‘natural’ vacation of the land via the demise of the 1st Appellant’s father. It still falls with the purview of the Areas court’s Judgment that M. Ali, 1st Appellant’s father shall vacate the land though at his pleasure to go back to his father’s old settlement.
It is not out of place to find out at this point in this Judgment meaning ascribable to the word “VACATE”, In the BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY Eighty Edition page 1584 the word “vacate” is defined thus:-
“1. To nullify or cancel; make void; invalidate; the court vacated judgment.
2. To surrender occupancy or possession; to move out or leave-tenant vacated the premises”
The land has naturally reverted to the Respondent albeit by an act of God and vested in him automatically upon the death of 1st Appellant’s father.
Issue 3 is resolved against the Appellant.
In the result the learned trial Judge was right in holding that upon the death of the 1st Appellant’s father the land reverted to the Respondent (Plaintiff at the lower court).
The appeal of the Appellants is hereby dismissed in toto.
The Judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed. The Respondent is entitled to costs which I assess at N30,000 in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellants.

RAPHAEL CHIKWE AGBO, J.C.A.: I have read before now the judgment delivered by my learned brother Ige, JCA and I agree with both the reasoning and the conclusion contained therein. I too dismiss this appeal and abide by all the consequential orders contained in the lead judgment.

IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A.: I was privileged to read in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, IGE, J.C.A. I have found the decision the issues raised and resolved therein well articulated. I adopt the reasonings and conclusions as mine. I do not think it is necessary to go further than this.
I, too, do hereby dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the trial Court. I abide by all the orders including the assessment and award of N30,000.00 costs in favour of the respondent, against the appellants.

Appearances

P. A. Aki Esq., with P. D. Mann Esq., and D. D. Randong Esq.For Appellant

AND

Chief Caleb Ubale Esq., with I. M. Gwani Esq.For Respondent